For those who have followed this blog for any length of time, you already know that I have never been a big fan of press releases.
I have always considered them to be little more than contrived exercises in self-promotion that generally make infomercials look like legitimate sources of real news.
Within the above context, it would be hard to imagine adding anything that would further “tarnish” the practice of this scripted chest pounding . . . at least one would think.
Unfortunately, and upon reading a SciQuest June 10th, 2014 press release titled “Educational Institutions Go to the Head of the Class with SciQuest,” a new low has been established.
Within the body of this latest and greatest news, the company proclaims that “TODAY” they have added “several NEW customers in the higher education market, including Drexel University, Lamar University, Sam Houston State University, Santa Fe Community College, Savannah College of Art and Design, and the Texas State University System.”
WOW! The company must be great. Look at all the NEW customers they have added! NEW!!!!
Obviously in light of this breaking news every higher education institution should get on the SciQuest bandwagon. After all, most vendor press releases talk about a single client deal. SciQuest however is tearing up the market to the extent that their press releases proclaim multiple NEW deals. Where do I sign-up?
Recalling one of the more memorable Jack Nicholson lines from the movie a Few Good Men, when he mockingly talked about surrendering the U.S. position in Cuba . . . “Wait a minute, Tom, don’t get the President just yet. Maybe we should consider this for a second,” perhaps we should also consider the true gravity of the SciQuest press release.
Upon a more thorough review of the “facts”, nowhere in the 2014 press release does SciQuest tell us that Texas State University System, Lamar University, and Sam Houston State University were all part of the same E&I “Bobcatalog” deal that the company rolled out in 2010: http://www.txstate.edu/news/news_releases/news_archive/2012/February-2012/RegentsFeb021712.html
All this raises an important question . . . are these really NEW deals?
Even if they are renewals of existing deals, why would the company not tell us this in the press release? Isn’t keeping clients on board a noteworthy accomplishment?
Why lead us to believe that the company is making all these NEW inroads i.e. “several NEW customers in higher education?”
This of course brings us back full circle to my original point regarding press releases. The only thing that I would add to what I have previously said is that there should be an expiration date stamp on each one, because press releases should definitely have a shelf life.
By the way, kudos to the Wall Street Journal for the fine job they did in verifying the facts of this latest press release! Well done!
What is the definition of a “NEW” customer?
30
Procurement Insights 
Nick @ Market Dojo
June 11, 2014
Ha, ha, great spot Jon! I also have a bug-bear with such press releases, particularly with the way they all contain at least one mention of ‘market leading’ or ‘global leader’ or ‘number one’. If someone were to add up the number of software companies that make these self-proclamations, we’d end up with a bizarre 30 market leaders in even a narrow field like eSourcing!
Daniel Perry
June 11, 2014
Interesting… I can completely understand if there is a delay between winning a deal and announcing it, as sometimes time between “selection” and “contract” can be a month or more, but announcing a customer as “new” when you’ve had an agreement in place with them since 2010 is a little off.
“Customer upgrades to full eProcurement” maybe, but “new”, I think not…
piblogger
June 11, 2014
This is my point Daniel . . . had the release said a “new deal” or “new contract,” there is latitude there . . . however the term “new customers” was specifically used. Unless I am missing something, I cannot see how that is the case in the examples cited. Unfortunately, it also makes one wonder if the same set of circumstances also apply to the other institutions that are listed such as Drexel et al?
piblogger
June 11, 2014
Thank you for taking the time to comment Nick. Extending it out even further, winning a contract does not necessarily mean that the expected results have been delivered. As anyone who has been in the industry for any length of time will tell you, 80% plus of all traditional eProcurement initiatives have in the past, failed to deliver the results. This is one of the reasons why I seriously question the validity of press releases.